I'm baffled that some people here are arguing that this could turn out to be a good thing, and are applauding giving the government this kind of terrifying power. I can't believe it's not immediately grasped how it'll then be used to take 27 other steps, no different than how programs like the Patriot Act have been, and every other vast over-reach of power has been throughout recorded history.
This is the perfect setup to a totalitarian state. We were already too far down that road, if they kill the sixth amendment then kiss the remaining liberty goodbye, it'll all be rapidly eroded via the government using its power to (comically easily) control public defenders. We've already gotten to see how these systems work, with a century of failed fascist and communist regimes.
What this case is actually about is someone who allegedly defrauded Medicare. The state froze their assets so they could get back the stolen money after trial (it's frozen, not forfeit, so they have to find him guilty).
His lawyer (who is not a public defender, incidentally) argues that he had a lot of assets before the alleged fraud. But the response to that is that is that it's not really fair to let someone defraud Medicare and then declare their assets not subject to a freeze because they've spent all the stolen money. All that really does is incentivize thieves to spend the stolen money first and what good does that rule do? If you have $5,000, steal another $5,000, and then spend $5,000, why can't the state freeze your $5,000 whether you spent the stolen or non-stolen money? Is it really fair to let you hire a high-price lawyer that others could only dream of when the bulk of your funds come from fraud? Why does it matter which money they spent first?
You can find all this and more in the transcript of the oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...
The government doesn't seem to be limiting their purview to just the money that was supposedly illicitly gained. They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by subject to a fine. It's not just the $5000, but everything. That's extremely problematic from a rights standpoint.
I would suggest you pose that question to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
> They're freezing all moneys that could conceivable by subject to a fine. It's not just the $5000, but everything. That's extremely problematic from a rights standpoint.
From what I read, it's only freezing what's necessary to pay them back. That's not a public defender defending him in the oral arguments. So this is only problematic as far as your Sixth Amendment right to counsel goes as long as you allow the public defenders to be ineffective and expect people to be able to get better lawyers with more money, leaving those with less money less able to defend their legal rights.
Now it's fair to say that the government seizing money in other contexts, like civil asset forfeiture, is problematic. It's just not something this case is about.
> charges of operating a complicated scheme that allegedly defrauded Medicare of upwards of $40 million.
> federal government moved to freeze not only her “tainted” assets, meaning those assets that can be arguably traced back to the alleged underlying crime; but the federal government also moved to freeze Luis’ undisputedly legitimate assets, which amount to some $15 million that cannot be connected in any way to any alleged criminal activity.
> Luis v. United States raises significant questions about both the scope of the Sixth Amendment and the reach of federal asset forfeiture law.
> According to the federal government, because all of Luis’ assets could be subject to forfeiture if she is ultimately convicted, federal prosecutors should not be stopped from freezing all of her “forfeitable” assets before she goes on trial.
The reason for this is that money is fungible. I can choose to spend from stolen assets or my original assets. Thus, it makes no sense to think of some as "tainted" and other funds as "untainted" which is something you will also see the justices question in oral argument. There's no sense in rewarding someone for spending the stolen money first, which is the only thing the rule being proposed would accomplish.
That's the same reason they've repeatedly rejected the idea, as also is mentioned repeatedly in oral argument by both the liberal (Kagan) and conservative members of the Supreme Court.
Certainly if she is convicted, then they can take her for everything. But she hasn't been convicted yet, she's just been charged. They're not 'rewarding' her for spending stolen money first, because in the case of a conviction they're going to take her everything and throw her in jail to boot.
And it's not necessarily true that assets, even monetary ones, are fungible and that you can spend from either pool at whim. My father has to separate his business and personal bank accounts for tax reasons. Criminals have to launder money, this was illustrated to hilarious effect in Breaking Bad. When you're dealing with large amounts of money, people pay more attention.
They're freezing up to $45M to pay back the amount allegedly defrauded from Medicare: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0514/If-a-defendan...
It would reward people for spending stolen money first if only the stolen money itself could be frozen, rather than simply allowing them to freeze the amount stolen, whatever accounts they might have to freeze to do so. That's the simple, logical consequence of separating the accused person's funds in the way that's being requested by petitioner. You spend stolen money and your regular assets can't be frozen, but if you spend your own money, the stolen money can't be. That simply rewards one for spending the stolen money and not their existing assets by privileging the others from being frozen.
Thus many of the justices, from Kagan to Alito, question how petitioner's request makes any sense.
Finally, although I realize you never said it was, due to the Breaking Bad reference, I feel compelled to continue to point out that this case does not involve drugs. Instead, it involves allegations that "bribes and kickbacks were paid to prospective patients who agreed to sign up for home health care they did not need or never received" in a scheme to defraud Medicare.
The law has a substitution rule that lets them freeze sufficient funds to recover the amount taken by fraud. Prior precedent allows this. Petitioner claims a violation of their Sixth Amendment rights.
It's hard for me to see why someone with a very expensive attorney can even make this case. Just how expensive an attorney does one need before their Sixth Amendment right is satisfied?
Having representation is not the same as being able to pay for a defense. That's just the start.
> Just how expensive an attorney does one need before their Sixth Amendment right is satisfied?
Like you said, this case doesn't involve drugs, it's not petty crime. It's not a simple matter to ascertain guilt based on the facts, because the facts aren't simple. You need expert witnesses, paralegals to comb through the evidence, defending yourself in court against a white-collar crime charge is not something you can do adequately without a war chest.
Unless the government is proposing that they pay for her defense, then they're basically railroading her by not allowing her to fund it herself. The government is going to bring all its unlimited guns to bear on making her look guilty and she won't be able to make her case adequately. It's not a simple matter of looking at a videotape.
Yes, they will provide public defenders if someone cannot afford representation.
That's why I've pointed out several times that the better argument here would be for a stronger public defender's office, rather than having a two-tier justice system where the rich (or those who stole a lot of money...) can buy better treatment.
Your sense of justice is ill-placed. The court system is a machine deliberately engineered to destroy lives. It offers no real justice, only political scapegoating. Stripping away the ability of individuals to fight the system in the name of rectifying inequality is a net loss to all of us.
And a defense is provided by one's representation.
> The court system is a machine deliberately engineered to destroy lives.
It could stand improvements, but feel free to live in a country without one if you truly feel that way.
> Stripping away the ability of individuals to fight the system in the name of rectifying inequality is a net loss to all of us.
Only in the short-term. Long term, do you not think that those with influence would rectify that if it would affect their ability to buy their way out? I'm a bit worried to see such a strong, negative reaction to equality.
And even if it would - wealthy defendants are likely to have "attorney fund pacts" - I'll fund your lawyer if your assets are frozen, if you'll fund mine. Or some more general "asset freeze lawyer insurance" practice will arise.
The problem is that the wealthy in the US do not believe that they play by the same rules, nor do they believe they should play by the same rules.
Really thought this one through, I see :)
You can take a law degree and go into any number of professions such as jobs in the police, human resources, journalism, areas of finance, all kinds of compliance roles and oversight or strategic positions in-house in companies etc. Basically you can treat being a qualified lawyer as having proven that you're able to work hard, learn fast and pay excellent attention to detail, which is often just as valuable or more as domain specific skills.
E.g. my ex recently went from one of the Magic Circle firms as a 2 year post qualification lawyer (UK system for solicitors - for barristers (litigators) it's slightly different - == 3 year law degree, 2 years training contract and passing the legal practice course; the latter can be done as part of/during training, especially if you get a contract with a top firm) to a director-level human resources position at a major bank on the basis of being a qualified solicitor with some lower level HR experience years ago, before her degree. Her legal training is by far the most relevant to the role vs. HR experience, given all the regulatory/compliance issues and general legal issues an investment banks HR department has to deal with.
But certainly, going into law to work in a law-firm is far from lucrative for most people.
(not that the overall cost is much lower in the UK,though: the law degree is a first degree, and costs the same as any typical first degree, and if you get a training contract the training is paid and many firms will then cover the cost of the legal practice course as well; even if you don't get a training contract before your LPC, it's possible to do the LPC for about GBP 5k I think)
The reality is that in many countries most lawyers don't earn very much, because they're not top end litigators or counsel to large companies, but spend most of their time writing "low value" documents or letters for clients with little money.
This doesn't seemed to have caused the supply of people wanting to study law to dry up.
(I don't know-- but I think it is probably not safe to assume.)